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 24, 2025
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
November 24, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on November 24, 2025 at 5:03 PM 5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION, pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Pacifica v. Millard W. Tong et al., San Mateo County Superior Court No. 18CIV05455.
6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer reconvened the meeting at 6:06 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; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Craig Wittner, Acting Dep. Fire Chief; Zach Harris, Human Resources Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Vice Mayor Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 24, 2025
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated there was no reportable action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Clerk Coffey requested to adjust the agenda to move Staff Communications right after public comments for Items Not on the Agenda and before the public hearing.
There was Council consensus.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Item #2 will be removed from the agenda and brought back on the Consent Calendar at the December 8 meeting due to a 2024 side letter agreement that was not incorporated in the redline.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there were any items Councilmembers wanted to pull from the agenda.
Vice Mayor Boles wanted to pull Item #7.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments on the Consent Calendar minus Items #2 and 7.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that the Art Guild of Pacifica and Sanchez Art Center were grateful that Council chose to not rezone the Sanchez campus and chose to have the lease renewed to continue art in our community at the Sanchez Art Center.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Councilmember Bier moved to approve the Consent Calendar (excluding Items #2 and 7); seconded by Councilmember Wright.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
1. Continuation of Proclamation of a Local Emergency at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood.
2. Resolution approving the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the City of Pacifica and the Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400 for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding 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 schedule 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 City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 24, 2025
corrections are made, including any remaining typos, fixing the table of contents, finalizing the documents for signature, and eventually posting online.
3. Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacifica and the Management Unit, Teamsters Local 350 for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacifica and the Management Unit, Teamsters Local 350; for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028, including the revised salary schedule 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.
4. First Amendment to Lease Agreement with Pacifica Performances for Use of a Portion of the Sanchez Art Center
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Pacifica Performances, extending the lease term through December 31, 2030, and updating rent, utility, and financial reporting provisions.
5. Agreement with Serra Yellow Cab for Senior Transportation Services (CaR Program) PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Serra Yellow Cab for the provision of senior transportation services under the City’s Connect-a-Ride (CaR) Program for the period of January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027, in the amount of $140,000, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Agreement and any related documents.
6. Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with the Art Guild of Pacifica for Use of the Sanchez Art Center
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Amended and Restated Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and the Art Guild of Pacifica (AGP) for continued use of portions of the Sanchez Art Center, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement.
7. Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution to approve the Tenth Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company and to authorize the City Manager to execute the Tenth Amendment to increase the cost ceiling by $829,851 for additional specialized planning services and extend the agreement term through June 30, 2027.
AGENDA ITEM #7 DISCUSSION
Vice Mayor Boles had questions on the scope, clarification, and budget for the additional services. She stated that we talked about the objective design standards and staff stated initial outreach and analysis will take place from November 2025 through June 2026 with a public engagement process. She wanted to hear more about what that was and when these would be brought to the Planning Commission and Council for adoption based on the timeline.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 24, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated we have objective design standards for our Housing Element rezone sites that have been incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance and include step backs, transparency requirements, standards for ground floor commercial uses, access, etc., but we do not have citywide objective design standards and currently use the design guidelines that were adopted in 1992 or 1996 and apply outside our recently rezoned sites. As stated in the scope of work, part of what we will be looking to do is determine a timeline for the work. Thus, an exact timeline is part of what we would need to develop. The work includes auditing the Zoning Ordinance to check for consistency with the General Plan.
Therea re many internal inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance that need to be addressed in addition to some challenging and not well-defined standards. She stated that work will also inform how we get to objective design standards.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that at a previous meeting she gave an example of Half Moon Bay having done emergency objective design standards over a couple of months and asked if that was given any consideration for our process.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that Council could direct City Manager to prepare emergency or urgent objective design standards which would be a different process that we have not evaluated yet but could evaluate it as part of this work if it is Council’s desire.
City Manager Woodhouse added that it would be a separate Council agenda item but we would have to analyze what the impact is to the department and the current workload priorities the department is working on.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to packet page 203 saying all Housing Element activities will be funded by the Housing Action Fund. She stated that was not her understanding as we had approved a certain amount of money for certain tasks when we did the budget this year.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes that statement is referring to the work authorized and allocated from the FY 2025-2026 budget which included Housing Element oncall and public sites work.
Vice Mayor Boles thought not all Housing Element.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding that our contract with HEART is paid from the Housing Action Fund through a separate action.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Mike Wahlman, Pacifica, advised against continuing increasing the ceiling by over $800,000, given the fiscal cliff we are facing, and does not think it is prudent to spend that kind of money.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse stated a significant portion of these dollars are paid by the applicants so they are reimbursable amounts charged to the applicants. He stated not all costs, such as the Housing Element Implementation Act, but many other portions are developer reimbursements.
Councilmember Wright asked, if we were fully staffed, would we need this cost for Good City.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 24, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it could potentially be less, but companies like Good City bring a level of specialized services to this kind of work, particularly around public engagement. Based on the size of our department and the types of projects, Planning staff works on long-range and current planning and works with consultants on these kinds of projects.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to packet page 221 which gives a breakdown of the fees. She questioned the use of our Housing Action Funds for work that was not related to affordable housing when we went through the budget earlier this year. She also went back to the FY 2023-2024 budget book when she thinks we set up that fund to use the excess ERAF money and it specifically says that we put in $1.67 million to start accumulating fund balance in this fund to be used for developing affordable housing projects in the future. She stated that there was a specific intention around the money we put aside for that and the current budget book also says the goals and objectives are to develop affordable housing programs. She is looking to understand where some of the money here is being reflected from projects. She knows the public sites planning outreach is to look at affordable housing and where we are most likely to get affordable housing in the public sites, and she does not mind that. She stated the annual progress reports are basic planning administration time, the zoning modernization is not specific to affordable housing, and the ODS and affordable housing projects have all these exemptions.
She is having a hard time as we keep taking money from this fund and she wants to be sure we are looking for other alternative sources, especially when we are being told that this fund is funding all planning activities around the Housing Element which she does not think was ever our intention. We are also approving money for two years and we have not even talked about the budget for next year; we are looking at revenue generations and other things we can bring forward and we are not ever going to build truly affordable projects unless the City gives land or has money to donate to these projects. She stated that this money is precious and building affordable housing is one of Council’s primary goals and she does not want this fund to keep getting whittled away.
City Manager Woodhouse knows that Council discussed this during budget adoption during our hearings in the spring and there was some policy discussion about how much of the housing work such as in the Housing Element is related to developing affordable housing. He stated that there is planning work necessary to do to lay the groundwork for getting to the point of an actual affordable housing project being built. It is interrelated and Council had that policy discussion and allocated an amount of $250,000 from the Housing Action Fund. He reminded Council that we have housing-in-lieu fees which are specific developer fees limited to housing development which is a small amount of money as not much has been built. A couple of years ago, Council created, with the use of the excess ERAF funds, a separate fund, the Housing Action Fund, which does not have a lot of legal strings attached to it but more by direction of the Council. He believes this item has a recommendation that there might be $71,000 or so of this item that is above and beyond the $250,000 that was budgeted from Council for Housing Action Fund usage. If Council wants to consider taking that out of the General Fund unallocated balance and not out of the Housing Action Fund, we can do that and have the City Attorney and Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez about the logistics for that and what recommendation Council might need to make on that. He believes Community Development Director Updegrave can talk about this chart and what is related to housing and affordable housing development and the work that Good City Company would do.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that task #1 is the on-call services, which is all cost recovery, such as specialized planning review of development projects.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles concluded that is not coming out at this time.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed. She confirmed it is about $71,000 or $73,000 in addition to the $250,000 that was already authorized. Even though the cost ceiling is being raised, the request before Council today is just for this budget year and the overall cost ceiling for the contract itself so we do not have to keep coming back for amendments as we are going through the work. She stated that budget allocations for FY 2026-2027 would still be coming back to Council through the regular process, same as the initial tasks came to Concil at the last cycle. In terms of how it relates to affordable housing, every program in our Housing Element has some connection into affordable housing. One thing that is challenging in Pacifica is that our codes are very outdated, difficult to use, and are inconsistent with our newly adopted 2040 General Plan; the permit pathways are not clear and are full of subjective standards or requirements that create uncertainty in the development process. Planning entitlements are confusing and can take a very long time to get through. All of these improvements that we make are supporting housing development, including development of affordable housing.
Whether it is 100% affordable projects, market rate development with onsite inclusionary, etc., it benefits the whole and we cannot have one without the other. That is what the zoning modernization is focused on. One example is when we did the rezoning recently and we added 13 new articles to the Zoning Ordinance and 12 of those were new zoning districts. Something that simple makes our codes challenging to use; our code is not adaptable and it is challenging to use in the context of changing State laws. Things like the annual progress report is planning administrative work and it is incredibly complex. HCD changes their forms every year and we have to report on different things and different formats. They change the formulas and we do not have current permit tracking software. It is very labor-intensive every year. We need to provide those progress reports and track our progress in order to maintain certification of our Housing Element. These things all connect together and are related.
Vice Mayor Boles understands a small portion does but we are charging the whole amount to this fund which was intended for a different use. She would love to see that number reduced.
She thinks we need toto have harder conversation when it comes to the budget next year and where that money is coming from. She would love to hear if some of them have other opinions.
She stated that we have a nonprofit in town that wants to build affordable housing over a new center and that is where this money should go. She stated that another thing about the objective design standards is we have some for Housing Element sites but it does not give anything about what the architecture looks like. She stated that we have little say over these larger buildings now because we do not have these standards. She stated that Planning Commission Chair Hauser said that this was the most important planning work we can do to ensure that we are getting good buildings. We have a short window by which we can define these and make sure we get good architecture that is respectful of our community character. It bothers her that this is taking so long. She knows we have public outreach and engagement as part of this. She usually favors public engagement but she asks if it is necessary or is it more important to speed this up. She stated that public engagement can happen in a Planning Commission meeting or study session, and speeding up the process would be her preference.
She stated that this is looking like at least another year out if we are talking about the initial outreach and analysis until June. She stated that this is something Good City is helping us with and they have more staff. She understands our PBF fellow has been working on this for a year in looking at the objective design standards. She asked that we look at that and try to speed that up if it is Council consensus. She stated Half Moon Bay did this on an emergency basis as they saw how important it was and were able to do it quickly. She understands that might change other work and we are reticent to do that.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 November 24, 2025
Councilmember Bier asked if she was suggesting taking some money out of this contract for that purpose and asked her to lay it out more.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that it is already in there and she is suggesting for the contract to be simplified without a whole public engagement process. She stated it could save some money and speed it up if we can adjust the scope of work.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Community Development Director Updegrave clarified that part of the scope of work is to develop the community engagement strategy as there currently is not a community engagement strategy proposed or fleshed out in the scope of work.
City Manager Woodhouse reminded Council that we are not talking about the specific project of the ODS development. The money for that for Good City to work on it is in here and Director Updegrave is saying that, as we launch that process, we can have a meeting with Council to talk about whether community engagement should be waived or just limit it to regular Council meetings or Planning Commission meetings. That is a future conversation that can happen. He thinks the concept of accelerating things would need to be researched more as that usually comes with extra cost to the consultants when they are working on an accelerated basis and we would need to look at the work plan is and what can drop off of the Community Development work plan, if anything, to accelerate that project. It is a separate conversation. What is before Council tonight is the services that Community Development desperately needs to augment our Planning staff work to deliver all of this pipeline of work that is necessary.
Councilmember Bier thanked Vice Mayor Boles for keeping her eye out.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we can look at those things and come back to Council with an update, as it is written broadly in the contract. She stated we are looking at revenue generation but we also need to look at cost control every time we are approving a contract as mentioned by the public. She then referred to packet page 227 talking about the public sites and stated it does not mention SamTrans and her understanding is that the Linda Mar Park and Ride is a SamTrans lot.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that site list in the contract is pulled directly from the adopted Housing Element. If one of the sites’ ownership was not correctly identified in the Housing Element, staff and Good City are still able to engage with public property owners. It does not require changing the scope of work or the contract.
Vice Mayor Boles stated it is also one of the sites in the Economic Opportunities study as a key opportunity site so it is an important one not to forget.
Community Development Director Updegrave thinks that Linda Mar Boulevard Park and Ride is in the Housing Element as one of the sites. The list is directly quoted from the Housing Element program itself. She stated that any work on public sites is also going to be a very public process so these will also come back to Council and the point of the contract is still those broad strokes.
Councilmember Wright wanted to reinforce what Vice Mayor Boles was saying. He would be in favor of speeding up the process, but he is not sure this is the right thing. What he did hear was her concern about the source of funds that we are using. In order to try to move forward, he City Council Regular Meeting 8 November 24, 2025
asked if there is some kind of compromise she would like to posit in the way of a motion like half of that $70,000 out of the General Fund and half out of the other fund to augment the portion of it that goes towards affordable housing.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she was willing to let it go for now but she wants to focus on it when we do the budget next year.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if this is an estimate for 2026 and 2027.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated this is for FY 2025-2026 and there is an estimate if the work were to continue into FY 2026-2027 and what that might look like. This is just raising the cost ceiling but is not authorizing additional funds into FY 2026-2027.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that would be part of the budget cycle.
Vice Mayor Boles concluded that we are not signing a contract for two years tonight.
Community Development Director Updegrave confirmed June 30, 2027 but the work being authorized is this work during this fiscal year.
Vice Mayor Boles stated there would be another authorization and this would come back to Council to authorize this work.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it would be budget authorization and it is FY 2025-2026.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that often, when we have multi-year contracts, the budget authority is just for one year at a time and the contract is contingent on that budget authority being approved for the next fiscal year.
Vice Mayor Boles moved to approve Item #7; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
8. Appointment to the San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District PROPOSED ACTION: Re-appoint Peter DeJarnatt to the San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees as the City of Pacifica representative for a fouryear term to expire December 31, 2029.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Lois Marshall-Ward, Pacifica, stated she is a board member of the Pacifica Resource Center and thanked Pacifica and the community the support given to PRC this holiday season. She shared details of donations and programs and how to contribute to their programs.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared details Section 8 housing evictions and how affected citizens can get support for their problems and options available to them from Legal Aid Society of San City Council Regular Meeting 9 November 24, 2025
Mateo County. She also voiced concern about the sale of City property at 540 Crespi and the possibilities for affordable housing to be built on it outside of the sale.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked Council for updating the STR ordinance earlier this year and shared her thoughts on Pacifica’s need to support neighborhoods in the coastal zone and actions addressing the issue at 1987 Beach Blvd. She described some of the documented disturbances that have occurred at the property.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, agreed with Ms. Abbott’s public comment and shared her concerns and further details regarding documented disturbances that have occurred at 1987 Beach Blvd.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, reported on work done by the Pacific Beach Coalition and shared details of all their accomplishments over the years.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, thanked Council for their support over the years and she was here to ask for help on the issue at 1987 Beach Blvd. She described the documented disturbances at the property and asked that the permit either be revoked or not renewed.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, shared his appreciation for the STR ordinance Council passed and shared his community’s concerns regarding the 1987 Beach Blvd. He shared further details regarding documented disturbances that have occurred at 1987 Beach Blvd. and asked the City not to renew their STR permit.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code with Local Amendments.
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Adopt by title only and waive the second 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 appendices and making certain amendments thereto; and
c. Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
City Council Regular Meeting 10 November 24, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave presented the staff report.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened the public hearing and, seeing none, closed public hearing.
Councilmember Wright appreciated our progress but wanted to restate his objection to the State not letting us address our community’s needs and challenges such as climate change in a proactive way. He is disappointed in our State leaders and wished we could do more.
Vice Mayor Boles appreciated the time we spent on this coming before Council several times.
She is ready to make a motion but also agreed with Councilmember Wright and hopes we can shift some things at the State level in the next year or so.
Vice Mayor Boles moved to take the following actions to adopt by title only and waive the second reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica: a, b and c as noted in the agenda on packet page 239; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa
NAYS: Wright
Councilmember Wright stated, for the record, that the no vote was to substantiate his desire to be able to do more.
CONSIDERATION
10. Recology of the Coast’s Application for Rate Increase for 2026 PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution confirming Recology of the Coast’s application for rate increase of 2.94% is accurate and consistent with the annual rate adjustment procedures specified in the agreement with Recology for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste Collection Services (“Agreement”); and finding the confirmation of the rate increase exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3).
PW Director Tigbao presented the staff report.
Councilmember Wright wondered how much Recology adjusted their employees’ pay during that period and if there were any benefit reductions, like increased co-pays on health care, etc.
Recology Operations Manager Ryan Gordon stated that Recology contracts with Teamsters Local 350 and negotiate contracts with them every five years. He has only been with Recology for about three years, but they have about an average increase of about $2.00/hour every year.
Employee benefit costs have increased a little bit over the years, but the benefits for the Recology drivers are handled by the Teamsters Union.
Councilmember Wright asked what percentage the $2.00 roughly represents.
Manager Gordon stated that he does not know what the percentage is.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we have gotten several comments from members of the public wishing that we had more organic waste pickup opportunities beyond the green bin. She asked if he can take a moment to explain what options are available if people have more than can fit in their bin.
Operations Manager Gordon stated that they offer weekly pickup to all Pacificans, and they can call for additional pickups for a fee if they have too much green waste. He also suggested cooperation with neighbors to use their green waste bin.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that, when she lived in San Francisco, they did not get charged extra but they could put out an extra brown bag or tie bundles of a certain size so they were not heavy. She asked what their constraints on that.
Operations Manager Gordon stated that every garbage company is different. In our residential areas in Pacifica, there are different kinds of trucks (i.e. slide loaders or rear loaders). He stated that, in the past, most of the garbage routes are rear loader trucks, which means it is easy to pick something up and throw it in the back of the truck. Our residential routes are serviced more by side loader vehicles and, if you put an extra bag of green waste, it would require our drivers to pick it up and throw it overhead into their trucks which is a safety hazard. They are willing to speak to the City if there are some things they can do for extra bags, such as paper compostable bags. He stated that, unfortunately, some people will put green waste in black plastic bags which are not compostable.
Vice Mayor Boles concluded that people would need fill up their green bin and call for a second pick up and they would have to drive back.
Operations Manager Gordon agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if if people could bring green waste to their facility on Palmetto.
Operations Manager Gordon stated taking green waste takes special permits that they do not currently have at their facility on Palmetto.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we do not have as many bulk item pickups as other jurisdictions. She notices that a lot of people have many things they need to get rid of and it is very difficult. She does not know if there is a consideration to increase bulk items pickups in some way.
Operations Manager Gordon stated that each resident is given a courtesy three bulky items per year. They can use that in three different months or all at once. They take bulky items free of charge at their recycle yard as long as they are able to show a Pacifica ID that has their address on it. Anyone with a Pacifica ID is able to use that Recology recycle yard for the three days of week they are open.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if they can pick up an extra bulky item for seniors who cannot pick up things or bring them to the yard.
Operations Manager Gordon stated that they could probably handle that on a case-by-case basis as they have some special exemptions for people who are handicapped or elderly and they go up their driveway to service their garbage cans because they have a tough time City Council Regular Meeting 12 November 24, 2025
wheeling them out to the curbs and they have that noted on all their accounts if they have a special exemption. He stated that may be something they can revisit if they call during office hours and explain their situation as they are always there to help.
Councilmember Wright stated he is thrilled about the service provided by Recology workers.
Operations Manager Gordon appreciated that. He stated that about 50% of their workforce are Pacifica residents. He was born and raised in Pacifica and his parents still live here. They are a very dedicated work group and, as so many of their employees live here, they take pride in keeping the City clean. He has lived here his whole life and feels great working for a company that services our community.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if he can explain the lifeline rate in the contract and who is eligible.
Manager Gordon knows that it is something that they offer and the Customer Services Department gives all the information about that. As the Operations Manager, he mainly supervises our drivers and makes sure everything is picked up, abandoned waste, etc. He can work on getting more information to Council directly and they can communicate that to the community.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, referred to Recology’s contract extension in October 2022 when she questioned the inability for people to bring their excess green waste for disposal at Recology.
She asked Council not to approve this item until they provide permits for organic waste disposal.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, thanked Recology for being a premier sponsor to Earth Day since 2006-2007 and for their support for Coastal Clean-Up Day. She also thanked Recology for helping to end dumping in Pacifica. She would like to see more education about recycling process for our community to do better things.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Mayor Beckmeyer wondered if there should be follow-up from staff with Recology on the issue of additional green waste. She also would like to know more about the permitting limitations.
City Manager Woodhouse recalled that Recology followed up with information and explanation about why they cannot accept green waste drop off due to permitting issues and a discussion about all of the green waste getting hauled to a composting facility for processing. If we are talking about Council’s interest in increased service from Recology of the Coast, that is a franchise agreement reopening and he would recommend that it be brought forward during Goal Setting.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if Recology would be willing to consider coming back next year and do a presentation on recycling, where things are going, and what numbers get recycled.
Operations Manager Gordon stated that they employ a waste zero specialist and his job is to go out and educate the community. They are also working closely with the City on SB 1383 which requires all commercial businesses to compost. They are identifying commercial customers that currently do not have composting and explain the benefits of them having service. Their job is City Council Regular Meeting 13 November 24, 2025
to educate the customer and explain the benefits of composting and what it does for the environment and community.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if there is anything we can do for green waste.
Operations Manager Gordon stated that he will have to talk with General Manager Glen Bongi.
He does not know the history of what was brought up and what they need to do but he knows there is extra permitting needed at the yard to make sure they can handle all the additional green waste. If people come in with truckloads of green waste, their trucks may not have the capacity to handle that. He thinks it is something the community is interested in and he is hoping it can be discussed further.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if the large bins at 2212 Beach Blvd. in the courtyard are part of their agreement with the City.
Operations Manager Gordon stated he is unaware of any contractual agreement or why those bins are there, but he can get back to them on that.
Councilmember Wright asked about the Christmas tree policy.
Operations Manager Gordon stated that they collect Christmas trees from all residential properties. They ask that the Christmas trees not be more than six feet in length or, if more, to cut those in half. They start picking those up immediately from December 26 through January
31. They need to be curbside with the garbage with all ornaments and accessories taken off.
Any stand on the tree needs to be removed as well. Those are on the regular pickup dates.
Councilmember Bier moved to adopt a Resolution confirming Recology of the Coast’s application for rate increase of 2.94% is accurate and consistent with the annual rate adjustment procedures specified in the agreement with Recology for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials and Solid Waste Collection Services (“Agreement”); and finding the confirmation of the rate increase exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3); seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
11. Guiding Framework of Parameters and Principles for the 2212 Beach Boulevard Site Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/P)
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation on guiding framework and key principles for potential development of the 2212 Beach Boulevard site, provide direction to the City Manager on the preferred parameters and expectations to be incorporated into the forthcoming RFQ/P, consider forming a Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee to engage at key milestones in the solicitation process and, if Council elects to do so, appoint its members; and authorize staff to prepare and issue an RFQ/P to solicit development proposals for the site.
Asst. City Manager Carter and Consultant Ken Hira presented the staff report.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles referred to the schedule and steps and asked when would be the touch points for Council with or without the ad hoc and what is the different process if not an ad hoc.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the next touch point for full Council would be the recommended firm with whom we want to enter exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) discussions with.
Vice Mayor Boles thought, at that point, we would be presented one option.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that is typically what would happen. After all the due diligence and technical expertise of Kosmont and staff, and if an ad hoc committee were involved, it would come down to ideally one recommended developer and we would get full Council direction to begin those negotiations.
Vice Mayor Boles concluded that, with or without an ad hoc, there would be only one presentation to full Council and community.
City Manager Woodhouse stated typically and previously happened in 2016 before his time, that is how the final developer was selected.
Consultant Hira agreed with the City Manager that the process is relatively fluid and it is hard to predict the number of packages that will come back by way of RFQ or RFP. He thought there will be nuances with respect to getting to the finish line. He thinks there can be updates at a Council meeting. In his experience with some of the other RFQ/Ps that is how it has gone down and/or there has been an ad hoc committee. They were trying to be sensitive to the time commitment on the part of Council in this process. He also made a comment that the exclusive negotiating agreement is recognizing that it is a non-binding agreement; it boils down to a period of time during which the City would negotiate the party and how long do we create that timeframe for. If it is a six-month agreement and there is the ability to extend it for six months with the party we enter in with, but they are not locked in or vice versa, we could take the property off the market and we would be in an exclusive for six months but part of that exclusive negotiating agreement would be performance-driven, i.e., there has to be certain things that developer does and certain things the City does in order to create the pathway for the technical due diligence, environmental studies, etc., and a negotiation of a DDA. He thinks the monitoring of that is a very critical part of this process. To get there is something that is either ad hoc committee or they can bring the recommendation based on their professional experience.
Councilmember Bier tasked, if there was an ad hoc, then the ad hoc committee would participate in whittling down the choices.
Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, asked to hear from the consultant more about the Surplus Lands Act process, specifically outreach to non-profit housing developers. She supported having a hotel on this site but asked what type of property we are looking for in City, such as boutique hotels.
She also raised concern about Coastal Commission approval of a hotel development if it did not contain affordable rooms, low-cost amenities, and access.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles thought it was stated before that it was up to the developer to understand the Coastal Commission requirement and things can be worked out through them later on but some basic constraints might be important to ensure that they understand, such as the existing parking. She asked if that is something we should specify.
Consultant Hira thinks that it will be important to express in the package some of the potential Coastal Commission requirements.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we have not identified at this point what part of the site we are selling. We discussed keeping the pump station which is attached to the building. At one point, there was talk that the Council Chambers building could be in the RFP or not. She asked how that gets worked out in the RFP and what are their suggestions, knowing the public space is being used and improved upon.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the previous Council direction and the presumption is that the only part of this property that will not be sold or changed is the pump station. The pump station and the critical infrastructure that it is would remain. That is what the RQP would describe. He added that, regarding the previous comment, we will not know all the detailed Coastal Commission requirements for a project, but the RFQ/P will be speaking to the fact that it is an important step in the process. As was mentioned in the RFQ criteria, experience working in the coastal zone and with the Coastal Commission will be emphasized in the selection process so any potential developers may know about other projects and limitations and requirements the Coastal Commission had imposed. Those are all going to be very sitespecific requirements and we have our LCLUP and particular policies and requirements that apply to Pacifica. There will be a general acknowledgement about understanding that there will be Coastal Commission requirements in the approval process.
Councilmember Bier asked if staff will be able to have conversations with the Coastal Commission beforehand as we have been trying to do with everything else.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that staff would do that, but at this phase in the process it is very premature to do that. He stated that there have been conversations, but in the Sharp Park Specific Plan process, generally Coastal Commission is very supportive of hotels in the coastal zone to increase visitor options and there have been supportive comments about this type of use previously. He does not think specific engagement at this point is part of the process.
Councilmember Bier was under the impression that Council Chambers would not be here.
Vice Mayor Boles stated the City has to spend money up front as part of the next steps, like doing an EIR, studies to find out where all this is going, and possible future building modifications. She stated, if we get someone right away, it would realistically be 5-7 years minimum before something will be built. She thinks it is important as we go into revenue generation that all those costs are paid for upfront. She asked if criteria like that needs to be in this RFQ.
City Manager Woodhouse stated those kind of negotiating parameters are part of the ENA process. At that point, it is all a negotiation with your development partner in making this happen and costs that they can endure versus the City, etc.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles concluded that he would not recommend staff specifying some of that upfront, i.e. having the financial wherewithal to make the project go ahead.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that any experienced developer will know that all of those provisions are going to be discussed during the ENA. He thinks reference in this process about including in there the expectation that there will be a significant deposit to cover legal expenses during the ENA process is important, but when we get into the ENA process, that is when all the other negotiations are and it will be too early and not enough detail to be able to specify things at this point in time. He stated that we are trying to package up and market this site for developers to provide enough information to them and be as transparent as possible for them to do their due diligence about whether they want to submit their qualifications and proposal.
Consultant Hira stated the site conditions very clearly with respect to what is on the site today, what is expected to not be on the site ultimately, and to provide the hotel developer with the best opportunity in terms of land area and the adjacency to the pump station will need to be spelled out. That will then be accounted for in their responses, both in the RFQ and RFP packages, and the exclusive negotiating agreement is when they will get into different types of details. He stated we do not know how long it will take before something gets built but, if we have a 2-3 year period of time where we have to figure out what we will do with Council Chambers, we will have some lead time there. Economics is something we can discuss with the development community and a Q&A for that matter if we need to bring that up.
Councilmember Wright stated this site represents renewable revenue in terms of TOT and sales tax revenue. It will bring more visitors which will bring more business and help feed the cornerstone of our Sharp Park Specific Plan which is to try to establish a downtown. He stated that it is going to add vitality here and teeth to our financial stability. He would be very interested in working on the ad hoc committee.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked about ground lease versus sale in regard to this site and use of this site.
Consultant Hira stated that, in any evaluation where a city or any party for that matter owns property, there can be a decision tree of selling or leasing long-term. He noted that the Economic Opportunity Study made a reference to the potential of a lease. He stated what is happening in the market place today is the ability to get financing to build expensive projects is challenged. For the development community, ground leases tend to be harder to get access to capital. The way to get access to capital when they are going to do a ground lease versus buying property and owning it in fee is to have something like a 99-year ground lease. It has been their experience as they work with cities that is not a very common term. There are some ordinances tha seem to restrict that length of time to more like 55 years where property could then be subject to market conditions. In this current environment, it is their recommendation that selling the property will allow for a developer to have it be equity position in the land, be able to get financing, and be able to build the project at a more attractive cost of capital because they will get more lenders interested and it will motivate the market place and development community from a marketing perspective if the property is for sale.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there was a reference in public comments to public amenities and the fact that it was public property at the present until such time as it would be sold, and she asked at what point in this process, laid out on their timeline, involving the ad hoc committee if City Council Regular Meeting 17 November 24, 2025
we have one, is it appropriate to have discussion about public amenities that may be part of a project.
Consultant Hira indicated that, in the RFQ/P package, besides existing conditions, there should be statements made about the City’s vision. If the City’s vision is a public amenities type project and/or driven/required by some Coastal Commission requirements, it is a statement made as an overview for what the project’s expectations are or City’s vision is for the site. The market is going to dictate what type of hotel is going to make the most sense here as to where it sits on an upscale or upscale luxury boutique and that is what the market will tell them and the development community will tell us with respect to their own underwriting. We will hear from them on what style, what format, what level, and what amount of amenization they see as a vision as a function of us sharing our vision with them in the RFQ/P package.
Councilmember Espinosa asked about making sure that non-profit organizations will have the opportunity to bid on this, so how are we going to market this property so any potential builder or non-profit will have the opportunity to bid on this project.
Consultant Hira stated that it is their expectation, if there is going to be a private sector development that would be hospitality use, they would want to try to create the best and most pre-qualified list. He mentioned that in step 2 where that list was going to be who gets the RFQ/P. In addition to that, for purposes of transparency in marketing, he suggested to put it on the website. That will allow for access to the information from those who want to review it. His understanding of the goal is to maximize the economic value of the land and the tax revenue generations as it is in fact an economic development driver for the community.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if he was talking about listing this property for sale on the City website or other sites.
Consultant Hira stated that the RFQ/P should be a link on the City’s website so people can get access to it, if they did not end up on the distribution list.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to the Surplus Lands Act process as it unfolded. She asked to go over what that generally looks like.
Consultant Robert Valenti would cover the Surplus Lands Act process. The Surplus Lands Act (SLA) is a State law intended to ensure that public properties are made available for affordable housing purposes. Under the current SLA public agencies that want to sell or lease an agencyowned property must first go through a structured sale disposition process. That requires exposing the property first to a list of affordable housing developers as well as some other required public agencies. It does not require that the property be used for housing and does not require agencies to receive anything less than fair market value, but it is essentially giving this list of affordable housing developers a first chance of proposing to purchase the property for affordable housing purposes. This property has gone through that formal SLA process: Council declared the property as surplus, and a notice of availability (NOA) was then issued and was sent to HCD’s list of affordable housing developers, as well as some other required public agencies. Over 150 different entities received that NOA and ultimately that NOA period lasted for 60 days and the City did not receive any letters of interest from those affordable housing developers or other public entities. Information about that process was then submitted to HCD who then reviewed it and ultimately issued a clearance letter that found that the City followed those SLA procedures and now could proceed with seeking other opportunities for the site.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that Councilmembers have a fiduciary duty to make sure we are getting a fair price and a good project for our community. She asked to talk about the appraisal process and what are the requirements and best practices for updating appraisals.
Consultant Hira stated there was a draft appraisal that the City was able to obtain and it was based on the highest and best use. He thought it was an effort to set some of our own internal expectations as those are sensitive values at the end of the day and confidential. As we embark upon the process to find qualified developers who are also going to make an offer ideally on the site, it allows us to have a benchmark clearly below which the City is not going to likely sell the property for something below fair market value. There can be offers that come in through this process that could be above fair market value and that process is something we want to stay very sensitive to. At the end of the day, because there is clearly a real estate negotiation component to this, there will be occasion for closed session with Council as we start talking about the economics and the value of the site. Regarding how long it takes and the time frame for that appraisal and the appraised value, an appraisal will be updated as the market conditions change and they can change rapidly in a short period of time. If years from now we are still negotiating and still have some issues we need to work out, a fair market value is one of those key variables and we get an update. The good news about an update to an appraisal is that it should be relatively easier than a brand new one.
Councilmember Espinosa asked what length of time should an appraisal be updated.
Consultant Hira stated, if it is a year old, someone might question what is happening in the market and it also depends on market conditions. He thinks the short longevity of an appraisal during that period of time was well understood. The other issue with appraisals is they lack.
The comp information available could be six months old. The updating of that depends on market conditions. A 2-year old appraisal is typically considered old. At 18 months, it might still have some validity.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, in her industry, appraisals are only one day of the appraisal and the opinion of value, and it is up to the person who did the appraisal. The next day, someone might say they want to do an appraisal, and it is valid.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to community vision in the RFP. She asked if the Sharp Park Specific Plan for the site has enough information or where else information about community vision for the project would come from.
Consultant Hira thinks the Sharp Park Specific Plan is a critical set of guiding principles, as well as community input during that period of time. He thinks it is clearly a document that should be linked within the RFQ/P package or for reference that needs to be important to be studied and understood. The developers that come forward are going to have a team and those teams should include, in his estimation, top architects, top engineers and there needs to be a team who have that experience. If they do not understand Specific Plans, they may not be the right party for us to partner with.
Vice Mayor Boles asked about discretion on the designs from the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
Consultant Hira thinks Council should have a say at the end of the day on certain types of architectural preferences, certain type of consistencies with the environment, etc. We will get from the development community a set of suggestions and approach and there is some flexibility there that will end up being required by both parties from a design perspective.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles thought that was decided during the ENA as part of negotiations.
Consultant Hira thought it also could be a discussion when those concepts come in the proposal phase. We will look at them and critique them and, if the architecture is something that makes sense, we could push forward. If there are tweaks to it, we could push that forward also. The ultimate design will be very much developed during the ENA period, i.e. environmental clearances, size of the project, type of project, scale, etc.
Vice Mayor Boles stated in the Sharp Park Specific Plan the height could go up to 55 feet but that has not yet gone to the Coastal Commission. She asked if we need a caveat now to make sure they know that still needs that approval as there might be some things that come up.
Consultant Hira agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, in terms of community amenities, it would be great to ask for a community meeting space.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked for a recommendation about what point in the process is it appropriate to bring these things forward.
Consultant Hira thinks some of the comments on the front end is part of the original package. If we indicate on the front end that we are expecting an amenities project to include certain benefits, whether coastal access, green space, different features of the hotel inside or outside, etc. he thinks we should indicate some of those things. The fine line there depends on how prescriptive we get. The more prescriptive we get, he thinks it will end up limiting. He stated that it is the prioritization that we should provide to the marketplace to tell them what we are interested in. When the proposals come back and projects come back, we will see what is on their minds and be able to dictate and drive additional amenities at that point in phase 2 that we are going to see either lacking or some things we like but want to tweak. He thinks we will be able to give some direction during that period of time when we do interviews and review and critique their packages.
Councilmember Bier was curious about right-sized meeting rooms. She also commented that a conference center might not be the best use for this site as we need revenue.
Consultant Hira thinks we can indicate if we would like to see some meeting space because that may be lacking in the community and we would like them to try to emphasize that. If we say nothing about that, they likely will put nothing in their packages or not refer to it. If we say we want a reasonable amount of meeting space because we do not have a lot of that in our community, we at least telegraph to them something that is important. He thinks, if we start to get too far into this notion of having a conference facility, what happens with the hotel developers is they are underwriting average daily rate which trickles down into something called revenue per room and that is how they are defining their return in investment. The more hotel rooms they can generate revenue from against the cost, the more feasible the project is. The more of that space they cannot generate income from is the way it ends up diluting that return.
He thinks we say to them that we think there is an opportunity here as there is not a lot in town and they will end up seeing what they come back with. The party that comes back with zero meeting space is something will receive feedback from us.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 November 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright asked how we strike the balance in the RFP between maximizing the value we receive both in the long term in terms of renewable revenue and in the short term in terms of value of the property versus being too prescriptive.
Consultant Hira has seen RFPs that were so prescriptive that they named tenants, businesses, a flag, etc. and that ends up being too restrictive at the end of the day. The comment that can be made is here are some of our preferences, some of our goals and objectives, and we would love them to try to meet these. We have flexibility when it comes to these different types of formats and humanization of a project. Depending on who our audience is, if we capture the right group with our list and/or they understand the site opportunity and how strong it may be, they will be experts and have all kinds of experience on coastal opportunities, ideally based on some of their past projects, and they will use those as examples and bring those creative ideas to us. He thinks we want to keep a level of creativity in the minds of the developers, professionals, and experts who have built several projects in a perfect world. If the party does not have that type of experience, they should not be our partner.
Councilmember Wright asked if he has done analysis in terms of whether he thinks this project can pencil or not and if it fits within the range of what developers are expecting.
Consultant Hira stated that they have done some high level evaluation mainly geared toward market and looking at other coastal hotels and what occupancy looks like, what their average daily rates look like, try to make some comparisons to different hotels along the coast, and what that might reveal as that average daily rate will be critical to the feasibility of the project. It cannot be a hotel with an overly rich rate at the end of the day because it also has to appeal to a certain market base that can afford the hotel. On the flip side, if the cost of construction is high, they will want to do their best to drive the greatest revenue per room. He mentioned earlier that the ground up hotel development feasibility today is a challenge because costs are very high and that is what many developers are facing. That will be reflected in their proforma and what they provide to us but he is also working on a couple of hotel deals that are moving forward and going to try to have to value engineer some of the cost components of their projects. At the end of the day, it should be an open book deal.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if he can talk about labor.
Consultant Hira thinks that, as part of the construction costs, there are lots of projects that have union labor or prevailing wage that are utilized. At the end of the day, the developer who is going to come forward and we are going to negotiate and work with has to understand market conditions. If we are in a market where labor and prevailing wage is essential based on the trades, they are going to have to underwrite it that way. If they come back and say, here is the feasibility analysis that they have come up with and it results in this kind of residual land value, which effectively is going to tell them what our land is worth, it will all go into that proforma; their understanding of the utilization of labor is something that we are going to get from them and/or we are going to tell them that this should be a consideration of theirs when it comes to construction. He thinks it is an area where we have to be sensitive to and what we put into the RFQ/P package. At the end of the day, it will be about financial feasibility.
Councilmember Wright asked if he considers the hotel use the highest and best use from the City’s perspective.
Consultant Hira stated the short answer is yes. There are at least a couple of reasons, such as based on its location and its proximity to the coast and its coastal serving use. Furthermore, City Council Regular Meeting 21 November 24, 2025
from a financial perspective, if we think about tax revenue generation that comes from TOT, and the ancillary retail and property tax, those are the things that are maximized from the General Fund benefit for the City that will come out of a hotel. Those revenues will come out of a greater and more sustainable rate than other asset classes.
Vice Mayor Boles appreciated his guidance on not being too prescriptive. She agreed that we do not need a conference center as that needs to be a much bigger site project. She still thinks it would be great to have some kind of community space, whether a meeting room or lounge, and maybe we leave it up to them.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated her challenge is figuring out how prescriptive we want to be on that.
She thinks there is probably a way that a company can put language into the RFQ/P that makes sure the developers that are responding to it understand this is an active bit of coastline. She suggested trigger words like pedestrian friendly or multi-mobile transportation that give that indicator of the need for public amenities and access for the public. She often stated about this space that this is the middle of people’s neighborhood.
Consultant Hira appreciates those comments in this direction. He is in the middle of a project where the developer and flag said to them that they want their lobby to be the city’s living room and he appreciated that. He thinks we want to impart Council’s comments within the RFQ/P messaging.
Vice Mayor Boles hopes it helps their proforma too with food and beverage, bringing the community in to help support the hotel beyond the guests from outside. She stated that there was discussion about a restaurant and she thought the Sharp Park Specific Plan gave an option that it could be on the ground floor or the second floor. She thinks it needs to be on the second or higher because of the views. She stated we do not have enough of those types of spaces here. Those tend to be higher-end restaurants that bring in more revenue.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if we see any disadvantage of having the pump here and will somebody be discouraged to purchase because of that.
Consultant Hira stated that, in a perfect world, it would not be there. He thinks the development business in general tends to be adaptive. For a site like this with its location along Beach Boulevard, ocean views, etc., there are ways to mitigate that side of the property where there is a pump. He thought we have to explain these types of things so the development world comes into this with their eyes wide open.
Councilmember Bier referred to the ad hoc subcommittee.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Asst. City Attorney Murphy to explain for the record how this ad hoc will work in this context, vis a vis the whole Council.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that ad hoc subcommittees are formed for a specific compass and for a specific duration and they are not subject to the Brown Act. They are a committee of less than a quorum. In this case, if an ad hoc subcommittee is formed, that ad hoc subcommittee could meet with City staff and Kosmont as we are moving forward on this project.
Councilmember Wright asked if we could include the Chair of the Planning Commission.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 November 24, 2025
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated she did not think so but she will confirm that. She believes that, once we start including numbers from different committees, groups, or officials, that could create a Brown Act issue.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she would be willing to serve on the ad hoc subcommittee also. As an architect, she works designing hotels and remodels to hotels and she knows how to review plans as well and would be happy to help guide the City in the decision.
City Manager Woodhouse confirmed the scope for the ad hoc subcommittee is participating in perspective developer interviews, the RFQ, discussion of RFP results and term sheets, and preferred developer recommendation to full Council.
Vice Mayor Boles asked, if it might be appropriate, since the RFQ talks about community vision, if the ad hoc subcommittee might have a peak at the RFQ before it sends out. She asked if there was value in having the ad hoc subcommittee review the RFQ for community vision.
Consultant Hira thought, if that portion of the RFQ is something the ad hoc subcommittee wants to look at, that would be fine.
City Manager Woodhouse suggested the language could be amended to add following consultant and staff drafting of the RFQ/P for the ad hoc subcommittee to weigh in on the vision and introduction component to the RFQ/P.
Consultant Hira thinks it is the city vision and community appetite for the project.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated, following consultant and staff drafting, the subcommittee will review and provide input to the City and community vision portion of the RFQ language.
City Clerk Coffey confirmed, following consultant and staff drafting of the RFQ/P, the ad hoc subcommittee will review and provide input on the City and community vision portion of the draft language in the RFQ.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to form an ad hoc subcommittee of Council to work on this project comprised of Vice Mayor Boles and Councilmember Wright with an amendment as stated by staff; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
12. Continuation of discussion following the November 10, 2025, Council Study Session on Revenue Generation Opportunities and Pacifica’s Financial Sustainability Challenges PROPOSED ACTION: Continue discussion from the adjourned Council Study Session on Pacifica’s financial sustainability challenges and revenue generation opportunities held on November 10, 2025. Provide further direction to the City Manager as needed on Options to address these challenges to maintain the Current Level of City Services and address Unfunded Capital Project and Other Operating Needs.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 November 24, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse, Asst. City Manager Carter, Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez, and Consultant Brian Moura presented their staff report.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, suggested exploring the option of contracting with the Sheriff’s Office in light of the City’s immediate fiscal struggles and the highest City cost being public safety.
Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated there is a national organization called Strong Towns that specializes in analyzing the trend of housing costs, infrastructure replacement, and accounting systems with cities, and he will be hosting a Strong Towns event on January 24 to bring that expertise to the City.
Mike Wahlman, Pacifica, questioned development progress on the quarry and its $1.3 million revenue opportunity. He supported an infrastructure bond for all public safety infrastructure. He also recommended the City look at Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative as a resource for public safety grants.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she has some questions about the Community Facility District. She stated that they would need public votes and asked clarification on who would be voting, citing the Rockaway/Vallemar area.
Consultant Moura stated that what typically happens on Community Facility Districts is they are usually used on residential developments but could be commercial. They are typically used before buildings are built. The reason for that is that there is a two-thirds vote requirement to form one and there are two different scenarios. If you form a Community Facility District where there is no development yet, in that instance, the two-thirds vote is the property owner, and you need one person to vote. Typically, the way it works is that often, the person who comes forward to create the district is the developer, not the city. It has only been within the last two years that we have seen that whole thing flip where suddenly the city is coming forward saying we want the money for the General Fund and for the infrastructure maintenance and the way they incentivize to developer to participate is to offer to have them cover some of their infrastructure costs or some their developer income. One of the challenges is because the cost of money is high and interest rates are high, in some cases cities are entitling projects and they do not get built. One of the things he has seen in the last year or two is that, in some cases, the way cities are getting developers to build housing is to offer them a Community Facility District.
Under normal circumstances, they would be on the hook for the developer impact fees and the infrastructure costs. Since the city wants to get some of our General Fund costs covered and want to have money for maintaining the infrastructures put in, we will work with them and help offset either some or all of their costs in those two areas. That is the reason that this particular financing tool is being used a lot more. He chairs the California Statewide Community Development Authority (CSCDA) and they do a lot of work in CFDs and normally that group meets twice a month. In the last two months, they have met every week because cities all over the state are creating these CFDs with developers to unlock and help build more housing in the state. They have been scrambling to keep up with the demand. He stated that it is an interesting time, but the other thing happening that is also driving all of that is that cities and counties are asking for that third piece of the puzzle. Two years ago, most of the CFDs they saw were for the infrastructure and developer impact fees only, and there was not any money City Council Regular Meeting 24 November 24, 2025
happening for the cities and counties. That has changed in the last year or two. Now, almost all of the CFDs we see at the statewide agency all have that third piece in it. Then, if we were to create a Community Facility District or some other form of assessment district to improve storm drainage, streets, etc., then you would require a two-thirds vote of the voters because it is occupied land. That is the reason you do not tend to see CFDs in occupied property. Usually, what happens is that, early on, either the developer approaches the city or in some cases the city approaches the developer and suggests they set one of these up before you proceed with your development and the city will have money to pay for some if its General Fund costs and its infrastructure maintenance and the developer will have some money to pay for the initial infrastructure and for the impact fees. Also, by having a rather large district by putting in a lot of units into it, you can do more with that CFD funding, such as including parks, school sites, etc.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we need more playing fields and other things with these large developments. She asked how long does it take to set something like this up and is it possible to put something on the ballot for next year.
Consultant Moura stated, if you were working with undeveloped property, there is a ballot technically but the reality is that the ballot is with one person, the developer or the property owner.
Vice Mayor Boles concluded that it does not have to be on a voting schedule for November.
Consultant Moura agreed. He stated that the City has two choices in setting one of these up.
The City can set one up all by itself and there is a process you go through in terms of assembling a team of legal experts or financing experts. The other scenario is you can work with the CSCDA, who works with smaller cities and smaller developments like the 50-90 unit developments and pool them together so you are sharing the cost of setting one of these up across multiple cities. What they do is, 2-3 times a year, they will set up one of these CFD pools and assessment district polls. There, you have to do a little planning because you have to look at the timeline in getting in on one of the pools, but it is the case that, if you are aware of potential developments in your community that are 50 units or more, you could sit down with the developer and put something together. It also could be the case that, if the developer is already planning to spend some of their money on infrastructure and development impact fees by creating one of these taxing districts, you could leverage their money and suddenly there is more money to put towards infrastructure or amenities or whatever because you are using both their money and the taxing district money. The downside is, because you are creating a new tax, in some cases some cities feel this is making some of the housing a little less affordable than if they were not adding this new tax onto the cost of housing. That is one of the reasons that, sometimes, you create the infrastructure district, where the tradeoff is you are reallocating General Fund money. If you are in a city such as Pacifica, where you have a General Fund problem, that may not be attractive for you. That is why these two tools are highlighted together and cities have to look at the pros and cons of each to decide which works and which does not.
If you are a city where your General Fund is rather strong, and you have a surplus, the taxing of the EIFD looks attractive because you are not raising any taxes. On the other hand, if your General Fund is constrained and you are looking for ways to help pay for Police and Fire and infrastructure maintenance, the CFD, even though it is a new tax, is more attractive.
Vice Mayor Boles stated developers might like this and it might be a good negotiation and help us build projects that we want, and she asked if the tax continues after the buildings are built.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 November 24, 2025
Consultant Moura agreed. He stated what happens is, when you form one of these districts, the developer is on the hook for the first year or two or until such time as they develop it. They have to start paying the tax. What is in it for them is that it provides money for them to offset some of their costs of infrastructure and developer impact fees and then this tax gets passed on to the person who buys the housing unit if it is a single family home and typically lasts 10 or 15 years.
They are paying an additional tax on that property on top of the property tax. That is one of the reasons that, if you are in the market for a home, you try to avoid units that have this tax versus ones that do not. It is all in the realm of the tradeoffs in terms of what benefits the different players. In terms of encouraging a developer to vote to create the district before the homes are built, there is something in it for them, which would be some money for infrastructure, for impact fees, etc., they will typically be interested. He stated that it has been interesting to watch that, up until two years ago, all of these things were created by developers and now, suddenly it has flipped the other way where we have cities and counties saying they will create it, sit down with the developer, and ask if they can cut a deal with them. He gave an example with the State agency looking at pools where one county said that they are going to set up a CFD for all of their unincorporated areas and try to make the developer come in with them to get that money.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if the 10-15 years period is part of the negotiation.
Consultant Moura stated the finance team that works with Council and City staff and the developer will analyze that, i.e., what are you financing, how much money do you need, and how many years is it going to take to generate that. He stated 10-15 years is typical for one of these taxing districts.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked which options do not require a vote.
Consultant Moura stated that the EIFD does not require a vote but the CFD does (two-thirds) and the difference is who is the two-thirds (the voters if occupied land and the property owners if it is not developed).
Mayor Beckmeyer asked for FY 2025-26, the City’s total assessed evaluation is $9,522,138,879 applying to 3.75% debt limit which is the State limit. The legal debt limit is $319.6 million. She asked what is our debt limit presently.
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated that is the current debt limit. The FU 2025-26 number for the assessed evaluation is what we have from HdL. They help us do our property tax assessment and we provided that in our budget as supplemental information in the budget book and it is the current debt limit. Our current debt falls under the exception rules of the State, i.e the pension obligation bond, our direct loan, and our leasing Certificate of Participation, so at least they do not fall under the debt structure limit. We have debt service that we have to budget for every year and we have to take that payment into account but the legal debt limit is $319 million.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that our legal debt limit is the $319 million and we are not close to that at all in our debt capacity and whatever the debt we do have is does not count towards that legal debt limit. Theoretically we could go into debt up to $319 million.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked, looking at General Fund lease obligations, if that is COPs.
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez responded affirmatively.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 November 24, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if we presently have COP on the police station.
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated that we have the 2016 COP on the police station.
Vice Mayor Boles stated in reference to the police that there might be a balloon payment at some point not accounted for in our projected years of finances and debt.
Mayor Beckmeyer wondered if that is the reason for the dip in FY 2032-33.
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated that represents when Measure Y sunsets and that is why the revenue number goes down. She stated that we have a long-term debt payment scheduled in the budget book and the balloon amount is in that schedule.
Vice Mayor Boles asked what year that is.
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated she does not have that as the last column says all other years.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we can get more information on that later.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated the revenue bonds through the wastewater system are purposespecific and if we are increasing sewer capacity or something and that would be something we would be looking at.
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez agreed, adding that we want to provide information with the understanding that the sewer rate studies are going out and reassessing that financing is only for their upcoming projects and how that works with the sewer rate increase. She stated that this is basic assumption on the wastewater side just to provide Council with some context on where we are now.
Asst. City Manager Carter added to the wastewater bond that this number does not include $20 million via application. If we accept it and if it materializes, the number will change.
Councilmember Wright asked what percentage of the CIP cost should we expect to be able to pay for with grants.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it is as much as you can get grants for. If the BRIC program was still alive, we could get $50 million towards BBIRP. That will vary a lot in a community, the level of projects, and the agencies involved.
Councilmember Wright stated we are trying to project into the future to try to budget and figure out how we can address some of these financial challenges without understanding having any idea of how much of that $371 million we can get in terms of grants.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the prudent answer is in our financing strategies we do not want to rely on getting any grant money but plan for being able to fund it all and then grant money is additional. He stated Pacifica brings in a significant amount of grant funding, more than $3.5 or $4 million this last fiscal year.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 November 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright stated that we have a historical average about what we are getting to address some of our challenges. He stated that the operating deficit is $6 million, and when we were talking about some of the tax measures, it seemed like that was what we were targeting.
He has not heard how we are strategizing about addressing understaffed, underpaid fiscal challenges. He stated that building our RHNA is part of it and perhaps building more hotels or having another kind of tax measure. He stated that he does not feel like we have addressed all these numbers at all.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we have not come to a consensus about that which is what staff is asking Council tonight.
Councilmember Wright asked for some guidance on what staff think are practical ideas or directions to head on for the $8.8 million on top of the $6 million.
City Manager Woodhouse stated staff received direction from Council regarding feasibility evaluation of voter-approved measures and we do not necessarily need any additional direction from Council as part of the study session is to lay out transparently all of the challenges that exist. Earlier in the presentation, Council saw a huge list of many different aspects of revenue generation that the City is working on, cost allocation study development impact fee review, etc.
Councilmember Wright stated that we are doing all that without enough staff to do it. He gets concerned about staff turnover and would love to see a plan put together to stop that.
Vice Mayor Boles stated all of these things are going to help bring more money to the City.
Staff is looking for a direction on these particular things to start with and then we will see where they add up and some of that may be included. She does not disagree with him.
Councilmember Bier thought staff did not need any more direction.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, stating at the last meeting we got the direction on the various voter-approved revenue measures for further research.
Vice Mayor Boles asked for further details on the research.
City Manager Woodhouse stated assessing the feasibility of the parcel tax measure with a public safety focus and exploring infrastructure funding measure with a focus on roads.
Vice Mayor Boles asked about the utility user tax brought up by Councilmember Wright.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that UUT was mentioned as an interest with limitations on the feasibility and polling. We can ask a question about that but cannot poll in great depth on that as it is a very complicated measure and staff will work with the consultant about the feasibility of that and get some data to report back. He stated there were comments from Councilmembers that were concerned about that expanded base for the UUT in order t increase revenues and staff will return with some basic information regarding this.
Councilmember Bier moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Vice Mayor Boles.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 November 24, 2025
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Consultant Moura stated what was discussed in 2022 was two different scenarios. One is to lower the rate from 6.5% to 5% so you are similar to several other neighboring cities but to broaden the base which means you add taxing cellular phones, phones, video, and potentially water. That would raise about $2 million a year. The other option was to leave the rate at 6.5% but to add those other categories and that would bring you to $3.1 million a year in new revenue. The challenge in both of those, and for the business license tax scenario that would raise up to half a million dollars, is neither gets to $6 million. The thought was that, if you are going to approach the voters to solve your $6 million problem, that is at the current level of service and without fixing the salary at the staffing levels, the only one of the three options that we have that would reach $6 million is the parcel tax.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we talked about the parcel tax being public safety focused, and she asked if we need to justify a certain amount of money, i.e. $6 million.
Consultant Moura thinks, when we worked with the strategist and the outreach people, the first question will be the voters’ interest in or willingness to consider a parcel tax at $6 million; part of that will also be what sorts of things would they feel are priorities. He thinks it is very likely, based on the comments we heard from the votes in 2022 and 2024 measures, that public safety in roads, etc., would likely be their priorities.
Councilmember Wright stated his other big concern is, if we do not come up with a way or a plan to address some of these challenges, we will be faced with some bad choices next year and that is not a choice he wants to make. He would rather stay later tonight and try to figure out at least some direction.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, as we talked about it and set things up last time, there were short-term approaches which are more or less limited to voter-approved revenue measures and there is the mid- to long-term dependent on new development and redevelopment and the money those bring in and a hotel when building things. That is the longer-term horizon that we need to plan for and, with voter-approved measures, that is an every two-year consideration on the ballot so we can have a layer of those into the future strategy related to those. Even with development impact fees, we do not get them unless something is developed, and that is a gradual mid- to long-term revenue source.
Councilmember Wright thought there is also a concern about putting a tax measure on as we know that SB 63 is going to be on there as a half-cent sales tax and the school district is likely to put something on there.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if that is our only strategy and what happens if this does not get approved. She stated we need to think of other things we can do. She stated that we need to figure out what we want Pacifica to be.
Vice Mayor thought, the more we can show that we are doing our job in being mindful of the money, looking for other revenue, etc., it will help to get people’s trust in them to be able to pass City Council Regular Meeting 29 November 24, 2025
this. The whole reason she brought up public safety is it may be more likely to pass and give us more money.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that it is hard to say it but she feels that we need to go inside the City accounting and see where we can cut. She wants to see where the City is spending money instead of trying to get money from the community who is having the same challenge.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks we can do that when we are going through the budget in the spring.
Mayor Beckmeyer pointed out we have been cutting without laying off through attrition. We delay in filling positions, sometimes because it is hard to get candidates who want to work for our wages, sometimes intentionally, but over years and decades, our staffing level has reduced and, compared to other cities of our size, our staff levels are lower than theirs.
Councilmember Wright stated 25 to 35 less employees who are getting paid 15% less than anywhere else.
Councilmember Bier concluded staff are not making a lot of money.
Mayor Beckmeyer added that we have been cutting but not through layoffs.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we need to look at the budget and it does not mean we will cut anything. She suggested looking at consultation fees. She also looked at the application for police officers and noticed that Pacifica is offering so many things.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that, even with all we are offering, we cannot recruit anybody as we are so short-staffed in the police which is part of the challenge.
Councilmember Wright stated that contracting with the Sheriff’s Office is more expensive.
Vice Mayor Boles thought it would be worth having an analysis of that and we can talk to San Carlos and look at their budget numbers.
Councilmember Wright thought that maybe we should do that analysis.
Vice Mayor Boles stated it is worth looking at as part of budget.
Councilmember Espinosa asked what we will do after looking at everything. She stated that there is no way we can survive with this amount of money and maybe people will realize that.
Councilmember Wright stated that there are huge advantages to having a police department.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that if we have staff take time to do an analysis of that and we want to have that information available as part of the information campaign.
Councilmember Bier asked if that is Council supporting our staff.
City Manager Woodhouse confidently said that, if the expectation was the same level of police services that we currently have and we contract with County Sheriff, it would be much more expensive than what we currently expend on police services. If we wanted to contract with County Sheriff and reduce police services dramatically, we might be able to figure out how to City Council Regular Meeting 30 November 24, 2025
save some money, but we would be reducing public safety protections in the community significantly.
Councilmember Wright stated that we will lose a ton of institutional knowledge.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we are already short-staffed.
Vice Mayor Boles suggested that we put that aside for now and do research as part of the budget process but she did not think it was anything we want to direct at the moment. There was the tax measure to try to get up to $6 million, and we talked about some options of how it is not equal based on lot size, etc., and exceptions for people on fixed incomes. She asked if that is something staff needs specific directions now or something they will be researching.
City Manager Woodhouse stated not now, but after staff does initial research, based on the results of that research, Council at a future point would decide what the ballot measure would say and what the parameters would be for that.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we had an infrastructure bond and she does not remember it saying it focused on roads but we have a lot of infrastructure needs. We went through polling on that two years ago and asked why it was not polling well enough.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if that was for the library.
Consultant Moura stated that, in 2022, we passed Measure Y, which is the half-cent sales tax and then, in 2024, we passed the 2% increase in hotel taxes.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, when we did Measure Y, we were also polling for infrastructure.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in 2024, we polled for infrastructure and it was a split sample for new library and infrastructure for roads and stormwater. Those were both in 2024 and not feasible at all.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the roads and infrastructure were fairly low. She wondered if it is worth spending our time and money for that.
Councilmember Wright stated that, when we did that analysis, it was done citywide and he asked if we focused it on the point where roads are terrible.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated assessment district seems like the methodology for a localized area such as Pedro Point.
Consultant Moura stated the assessment district is for a specific purpose and a specific area and, in that particular tool, what you need to have what is called an engineer’s report, which calculates how much benefit each property gets from the proposed improvement; it could be used for roads, for storm drainage, or other things in a localized area.
Councilmember Bier asked what the infrastructure bond is focused more on, such as climate adaptation infrastructure.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if we can think of a few things that we can apply, such as economic development, outside of the parcel tax.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 November 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright stated we need to build hotels, and we need to build the Sharp Park Specific Plan, but what can we do to reduce the energy bill for example.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that is one of the things on her list about saving money, such as putting in solar panels to reduce energy costs.
Councilmember Wright asked if PCE has zero interest loans.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there are only $10,000 zero interest loans. They have a certain amount of money per city. That is one of the things we should explore.
Councilmember Bier asked about another discussion about revenue generation.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is continuation of the study session. He mentioned to Council early in the new year when the new Economic and Housing Development Manager is on board doing a study session about our economic development program strategy which includes important programs and continuation related to this but that is a future discussion.
Regarding the energy savings related to the wastewater treatment plant, that does not help the General Fund situation. It is critical to save money in the wastewater fund by reducing expenditures on energy.
Vice Mayor Boles stated there is no solar on the police station where there is more land around.
City Manager Woodhouse added solar at the Community Center and at City Hall will help reduce those energy costs.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she and Councilmember Wright met with someone who was offering to do a whole evaluation of all of our City buildings and bills for free. She stated it is important to get the information and we can think about it. She stated she has a long list of things, but one of the things she heard from South San Francisco is they are luring businesses from San Francisco because they offer some benefits to companies to encourage them to come. She thought we could offer discounted planning fees or a shorter time period for hotels and restaurants.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if she was talking about streamlined planning services.
Vice Mayor Boles agreed, adding even incentives to bring them in. She asked staff about business license fees for other contractors that work in Pacifica. She stated that, as an architect working in certain cities, before she can file a permit application, she has to show her business license. She stated to do that and make sure it all adds up to people doing work in Pacifica.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated we do that and, with the economic development fee, we look at the vacancies, attracting businesses, etc. in our economic development plan. Working on simplifying some of the processes and making Pacifica more business-friendly is a core initiative of the work plan.
Vice Mayor Boles stated what she sees in other cities that are doing so well is that they also have businesses and jobs and that is part of what we do not have here.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 November 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright asked if figuring out a path forward to address all these challenges is something that typically staff does and some consultants do.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is all of them together which is what we have done. He stated that it is with Council setting the Strategic Plan, prioritizing the financial and organizational sustainability and the goals and strategies within that, looking at EIFDs/CFDs, doing the Cost Allocation Plan, etc. are what we can do currently to try to set Pacifica up for success ten years from now. In the meantime, we need to be balancing the budget each year.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, if we were into this deep debt, we should have addressed it earlier. She felt we should have been talking earlier on strategies to figure out what to do. She does not think we have enough time to figure this out. Even if we do the parcel taxes, it does not mean it is going to happen or solve the issue.
Councilmember Bier stated that staff have been talking to Council for years.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we have had this conversation and why we had Measure Y and the TOT vote. These measures were put on the ballot by this Council and working with our staff, led by the City Manager, and bringing these items forward. She stated we have undertaken initiatives and we are still in a situation because it is a structural problem that we do not bring in enough revenue and our expenses continue to rise.
Councilmember Wright added it is because we are 94% residential and 4% commercial.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, if we are only building housing, we are going to continue that problem.
Councilmember Espinosa feels that, the way we are discussing things, we are not going anywhere. We need look at everything we have and then show the people that we cannot find any way to save and this is what we have. Then, we can move forward.
Councilmember Wright would love to hear Vice Mayor Boles’ list.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that one of them is to have more internships. She stated that there are ways we can help our staff and our community and that is one. She went to a senior event with Roy Ernest and one of the cities presented a whole volunteer organization through the City Manager’s office that manages volunteers through a website with opportunities listed. We can make those resources easily accessible so people can sign up and do something.
Mayor Beckmeyer appreciated that, adding that we have to factor in staff oversight and coordination, and it is a shift in resources.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that it has to be the right fit and the right person, hopefully someone who stays on for a while to minimize training costs. She thinks we need to focus on bringing more jobs into town in whatever way we can do that. She stated when our City staff started working remotely during COVID-19 the weekdays were when our businesses struggled the most as they do not have enough people spending money and San Francisco has asked for city workers to come in the office certain days. She does not know how that works and how many people are working remotely, but it shows to our businesses that we are also trying and bringing that revenue back. She thinks that is something they should consider. She stated the economic opportunity study talked about using the parking lot as well as the bowling alley. The community wants some indoor recreation that brings people and visitors here that have City Council Regular Meeting 33 November 24, 2025
something to do at night. She thinks we are missing marketing opportunities and who are we as a City. She questioned what is something we want to be proud of, want to draw people here for, something the whole community things that is behind on, etc. She stated that there are many opportunities as we start to delve into our economic development that we are missing out on now.
Councilmember Wright is thankful that at least we are addressing the problem and, if we work together, particularly with staff, we can get it done.
Councilmember Espinosa asked, if Council has questions, who are they going to talk to. The key is to use them and move forward and implement them. We need to figure out who we are and what are we going to be.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m.; seconded by Vice Mayor Boles.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:45 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-1]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa
NOES: Wright
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there may be an opportunity for some of the ideas just being discussed that we can talk about with the economic development presentation in January.
City Manager Woodhouse stated on the report from November 10, there is information in there and a high level summary of the economic development program strategy. When the new City Manager is on board and has some time to develop that out more robustly, he was thinking a study session early in the year would be appropriate to have with a good opportunity to talk about the economic development programs that are geared towards the visions and goals that Council is identifying and have that conversation specifically about economic development program.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we also talked about having a review of the Economic Development Committee work plan early in the year.
City Manager Woodhouse stated one component of the Economic Development program is the Economic Development Committee’s work which the program supports and they have their work plan and we can include a discussion of the EDC’s work plan as part of that as well.
Vice Mayor Boles asked, with what we have given direction on in terms of the ballot measures, what are the next steps and when would staff be coming back to Council.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, also early in the year, staff will report back results to Council for follow-up conversation about what looks feasible and what is not and what the next steps would be.
Vice Mayor Boles appreciated that he is continuing the work and putting energy in it. She knows he knows this is Pacifica’s biggest issue and, even though he is leaving us, he is still committed to trying to help us out.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 November 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright reiterated what Vice Mayor Boles said in terms of all of staff and their dedication and the culture we have developed in Pacifica in all of our little pockets of employees who are going above and beyond for us.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Council Communications.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated several months ago we were selected as one of 20 cities in the country for an opportunity to develop a promotional video about the City that highlights where Pacifica is, what it is, and what it stands for, and markets Pacifica for many different things. It is a video that Council, Planning, and staff participated in, and it will be used for economic development marketing purposes for recruitment of employees, etc. It will also be on the City’s website and promoted by other means.
ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 11:33 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 1/26/2026
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor